coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sofia.
7.  In 1967 her parents purchased from the Sofia municipality a two-room apartment of 69 square metres in the centre of the city. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947.
8.  After the deaths of her parents the applicant inherited from them.
9.  On 23 February 1993 the former pre-nationalisation owners of the apartment brought proceedings against the applicant under section 7 of the Restitution Law, seeking nullification of her title and restoration of their property. The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 5 March 2004. The courts declared the 1967 contract null and void and restored the plaintiffs’ title to the apartment on two grounds: 1) the initial decision to sell the apartment had not been affirmed by the Minister of Architecture and Public Works but by his deputy; and 2) the sale contract had been signed not by the mayor but by one of his deputies. Although the mayor had been entitled to authorise another person to sign such contracts, he had made no written and explicit authorisation.
10.  After the final judgment in her case, it became possible for the applicant to seek compensation from the State in the form of bonds, which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicant did not immediately apply for bonds.
11.  She requested bonds in November 2006, following the amendments to the Restitution Law of June 2006. The regional governor dismissed the request and the applicant appealed against the refusal; the appeal was dismissed in a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 April 2009. The domestic courts found that persons who had not applied for compensation bonds within the relevant time-limit, in force since 2000, could not seek such bonds after the adoption in June 2006 of new paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 7 of the Restitution Law as the amendment at issue did not give rise to a new entitlement to compensation bonds and therefore did not affect the relevant time-limit.
12.  In February 2007 the applicant vacated the apartment.
13.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Cracow.
5.  The applicant was charged with handling stolen property and, on an unspecified later date, he was detained on remand.
6.  On 29 November 1993 the Cracow District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 2 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 8 April 1994 the Cracow Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
8.  The applicant was charged with handling stolen property, forgery of documents and unlawful possession of a firearm and, on an unspecified later date, he was detained on remand.
9.  On 2 March 1995 the Cracow Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed.
10.  On 5 October 1995 the Cracow Court of Appeal amended the first-instance judgment and increased the sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment.
11.  On 21 December 1995 the Cracow Regional Court gave a cumulative judgment (wyrok łączny) and sentenced the applicant to 5 years’ imprisonment as cumulative penalties for the former conviction given in the first set of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 7 above) and the latter conviction given on 5 October 1995.
12.  On an unspecified later date the applicant was charged with handling stolen property.
13.  On 27 February 1997 the Cracow Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 5 June 1997 the Cracow Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. A cassation appeal was available.
15.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant requested to have the criminal proceedings against him re-opened. On 18 July 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed his request.
16.  On 14 March 2002 the Court received the applicant’s letter of 25 February 2002. The envelope bore the following stamp: “Censored on 28 February 2002” (Ocenzurowano dnia 28.02.2002) and an illegible signature.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Batman.
5.  On 1 April 1996 the applicant was arrested by gendarmerie officers while he was leaving Batman. He was then transferred to the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Batman Police Headquarters on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation.
6.  On 18 April 1996 the applicant was brought before the Batman public prosecutor and the judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court. The judge remanded the applicant in custody.
7.  On an unspecified day the Batman public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
8.  On 22 May 1996 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with other persons, charging him with membership of the PKK under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code.
9.  On 30 July 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case.
10.  On 25 December 2001 the Fourth Chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
11.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicant and his representative requested several times that the applicant be released pending trial. At the end of each hearing the State Security Court rejected the applicant’s requests, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.
12.  On 9 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was subsequently remitted to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
13.  On 13 May 2003 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.
14.  On 23 March 2004 the State Security Court once again convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
15.  On 19 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 23 March 2004.
16.  Pursuant to Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, abolishing State Security Courts, the case against the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
17.  On 2 May 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided that the proceedings against the applicant should be terminated on the ground that the statutory time‑limit under Article 102 of the Criminal Code had expired. This decision to terminate the case became final as neither the applicant nor the public prosecutor appealed.
4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1956, respectively, and live in Koszalin.
5.  On 1 August 1997 the applicants filed a claim with the Koszalin District Court against a housing co-operative concerning the amount of maintenance fees to be fixed in respect of their apartment building.
6.  On 24 November 1998 the proceedings were stayed pending the termination of parallel proceedings relating to the alleged nullity of an amendment made to the co-operative’s statute. The Koszalin District Court resumed the proceedings on 7 March 2003.
7.  On 13 May 2003 a hearing was held. The court requested the Koszalin Regional Court to provide the case-file of the proceedings relating to the alleged nullity of an amendment made to the co-operative’s statute.
8.  On 16 June 2003 the Koszalin District Court decided to stay the proceedings at the applicants’ request. They were resumed, upon the applicants’ request, on 17 November 2004.
9.  Hearings were subsequently held on 23 February, 11 August, 22 September, 10 November and 9 December 2005.
10.  On 30 January 2006 the Koszalin District Court decided to admit an expert opinion. On 6 June and 16 August 2006 the expert requested prolongation of the time-limit for submission of the opinion.
11.  On 6 September 2006 the court summoned the expert to submit the opinion within 7 days.
12.  In 2007 the District Court held 7 hearings.
13.  18 October 2007 the Koszalin District Court gave a judgment in the case.
14.  The judgment was quashed on 27 February 2009 by the Koszalin Regional Court and the case remitted for re-examination.
15.  The proceedings are currently pending before the first-instance court.
16.  On 30 November 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
On 6 January 2006 the Koszalin Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint, finding that the trial court could not be held responsible for any delays and that the proceedings had been prolonged as it had been necessary to stay them.
5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Gdańsk.
6. On 20 July 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody by the Gdańsk Regional Court on suspicion of murder. The court held that there had been a risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings or abscond, given the severity of the penalty he faced.
7.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Gdańsk District Prosecutor’s Office. The charges against the applicant were also extended.
8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on the following dates: 11 October 2001, 10 January, 18 April, 17 September 2002, 28 January, 2 July, 1 October, 30 December 2003, 3 February, 21 April, 7 December 2004, 24 February, 9 June 2005, 29 May and 21 September 2006. The courts relied mainly on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the gravity of the charges. The courts considered that the applicant had been charged with the commission of crimes for which he was liable to a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 8 years, and that the circumstances of the case indicated that there was a reasonable risk that he might obstruct the proceedings. Regard was also had to the number of suspects and the need to obtain further evidence.
9.  During the investigation and the trial the applicant filed several unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention.
10.  From 20 March 2002 until 9 May 2002 and from 17 February 2003 until 18 March 2003 the applicant served prison sentences imposed in other sets of criminal proceedings against him.
11.  On 14 June 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered a judgment in the case. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 24 February 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant, sentenced him to 6-years’ imprisonment in respect of some of the charges, and remitted the remainder of the case for retrial.
13.  Between 2005 and 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court held fourteen hearings in the case.
14.  The applicant was released on 14 May 2007. The Gdańsk Regional Court found that the necessary pieces of evidence had been obtained and the case was at its final stage, so there was no need to prolong the applicant’s detention.
15.  The proceedings are pending.
4.  Mr. Július Ďurech and Mr Pavol Ďurech were born in 1933 and 1940 respectively and live in Prešov. Ms Marta Máthéová was born in 1930 and lives in Košice. The applicants are siblings.
5.  On 7 October 1987 the applicants requested a judicial determination of their ownership title to a house.
6.  The first-instance court delivered judgments on 18 November 1987, 25 October 1988, 5 June 1990, 4 July 1995 and 3 March 1997. The court of appeal quashed those judgments on 26 May 1988, 22 December 1988, 28 February 1991, 5 March 1997 and 29 October 1999 respectively.
7.  On 28 January 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicants’ right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
8.  The Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to examine the length of the proceedings as from 15 February 1993, but it had regard to the stage which the proceedings had reached by that date. The case was not complex and the applicants by their conduct had not caused any delay. The overall length of the proceedings was in itself incompatible with the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
9.  The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay. It also awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (the equivalent of 2,465 euros at that time) to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicants’ costs.
10.  On 1 February 2005 the District Court delivered a judgment. The Košice Regional Court quashed that judgment on 14 November 2005 on the ground that the District Court had failed to assess the relevant evidence and to give sufficient reasons for the conclusion reached.
11.  On 28 November 2006 the District Court found against the applicants. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 30 April 2008. The decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 2 July 2008.
12.  On 24 November 2008 the applicants asked the Prosecutor General to lodge an extraordinary appeal on points of law against the above final decision on their behalf. No further information has been made available.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Warszawa.
5.  On 9 June 1993 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for division of matrimonial property. She paid the relevant court fees on 9 November 1993.
6.  Between 9 June 1993 and 21 February 2003, the District Court scheduled 28 hearings, 6 of which were adjourned due to the failure of the applicant’s husband to appear; only two hearings were scheduled in 1996, no hearing was scheduled between 8 December 1997 and 15 June 1999 and two hearings were scheduled in 2000.
7.  On 5 March 2003 the Warszawa District Court delivered a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe) on the parties’ respective shares in the matrimonial property.
8.  Between 4 August 2004 and 16 April 2008, the District Court scheduled 13 hearings, 3 of which were adjourned. No hearing was held in 2006.
9.  On 23 June 2008 the Warszawa District Court gave a decision. The applicant appealed. The proceedings are pending before the second-instance court.
10.  On 1 June 2006 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004.
11.  She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warszawa District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).
12.  On 4 August 2006 the Warszawa Regional Court gave a decision. The court held that the 2004 Act did not have retroactive effect and, consequently, examined the applicant’s claim only in respect of the period between the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004 and the date on which the complaint had been lodged. The court found that, during that part of the proceedings, there had been some periods of inactivity for which the District Court had been responsible. The court awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 (approx. EUR 526 euros) in just satisfaction.
5.  The applicants' names and other details are indicated in the appended table.
6.  The applicants emigrated to Israel from the USSR in the 1980s and 1990s and obtained Israeli nationality. Before immigration they had been receiving old-age pensions from the Soviet authorities. However, once the applicants left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with the USSR pension law applicable at the material time. As they left the USSR prior to its collapse, they were not entitled to a pension under the new Russian legislation.
7.  In early 2000 the applicants unsuccessfully applied to the regional departments of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (“the Pension Fund”) for the payment of their pensions to be restored. On unspecified dates they brought civil proceedings against the Pension Fund requesting restoration of the payment of their pensions.
8.  By the final judgments listed in the appended table the applicants' claims were allowed and the Pension Fund was ordered to restore pension payments.
9.  In their judgments the courts found, inter alia, that although the pensions had initially been awarded in accordance with the USSR legislation, the latter was also applicable in the Russian Federation. The courts interpreted the relevant legal provisions in the light of the Constitutional Court judgment of 15 June 1998, considering that the pension payments should be restored regardless of the date or place of emigration from the Russian Federation.
10.  The Pension Fund restored the payments in ten cases (see § 43 below).
11.  On 17 June 2005 the Pension Fund, in a letter numbered ГВ‑21‑15/6390, asked the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to provide an explanation of the issue. It based the request on the fact that courts of different regions had different attitudes towards the problem. Thus, it noted that in Moscow, the Moscow Region and in most of the other regions the courts rejected claims for payment of pensions to emigrant pensioners whose pensions had been awarded in accordance with the legislation of the USSR. At the same time, the courts in St Petersburg, in the Samara Region, in the Kaluga Region and in the Yaroslavl Region awarded such payment.
12.  Subsequently the Pension Fund, as a party to the proceedings in the present case, lodged requests with the competent regional courts for supervisory review of the final judgments in the applicants' favour. The Presidia of the regional courts granted the requests, quashed the judgments and dismissed the applicants' claims.
13.  The Presidia found that according to the relevant USSR legislation, under which the pensions had been awarded, there was no possibility to continue the payments to the applicants, as they had left the country. According to their interpretation of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 15 June 1998, the payments were to be restored only if the pensions had been awarded in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, not the USSR. The Presidia accordingly concluded that there was no basis under the domestic law for the payments to be awarded to the applicants.
14.  The relevant data on the Presidia decisions is listed below.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Ninotsminda, Georgia.
5.  On 20 July 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for a number of economic crimes. He was placed under police supervision pending trial.
6.  On 30 June 2001 the prosecution authority terminated the investigation and sent the case to the Ninotsminda District Court for trial. The Registry of that court acknowledged receipt of the file on 12 July 2001.
7.  On 18 January 2005 the Aspindza District Court, which instance had taken over the applicant’s case, reproaching the prosecutor for deficiencies in the bill of indictment and the failure to conduct a financial audit of the applicant’s activities, remitted the case for an additional investigation. However, on 17 March 2005 the Tbilisi Appellate Court, overturning the decision of 18 January 2005, ordered the trial court to proceed with an examination on the merits. The appellate decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 14 July 2005.
8.  In a verdict of 11 August 2006, the applicant was partly convicted and partly acquitted of the charges. No sentence was imposed with respect to the conviction, as it had become time-barred.
9.  The verdict of 11 August 2006 was upheld by the Tbilisi Appellate Court and the Supreme Court on 23 October 2006 and 15 May 2007 respectively.
10.  As disclosed by the case materials, the applicant, an ethnic Armenian allegedly without knowledge of the Georgian language, was assisted by a Georgian-speaking legal counsel and an interpreter throughout the judicial proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Novosibirsk Region.
6.  The applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Legal aid counsel was appointed to represent him. The applicant and his accomplice were accused of having unlawfully entered the victim’s flat and having robbed him. The applicant was also charged with having wounded the victim with a knife, causing the victim’s death.
7.  On 11 October 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court appointed another legal aid counsel to represent the applicant at the trial. The applicant admitted the relevant facts, while giving a version of the events which differed from that of his accomplice. In particular, he made admissions to the effect that he had wounded the victim in a fight and had then taken his belongings in order to simulate a robbery.
8.  On 16 October 2001 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and robbery and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. In his points of appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the applicant challenged the admissibility and assessment of evidence by the trial court. He asked the court to ensure his attendance at the appeal hearing.
9.  The applicant asked for legal assistance with a view to preparing for the appeal hearing. No response was received. On 20 June 2002 the Supreme Court granted the applicant leave to appear in person.
10.  On 31 October 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant was not represented. According to the applicant, the hearing was conducted by means of a videoconferencing facility (VCF). The Government, however, submitted that the applicant “had been present at the hearing”.
11.  The applicant lodged a request dated 22 August 2003 for supervisory review of his conviction. This request was received by the Supreme Court on 26 September 2003. In another request dated 31 October 2002, received by the Supreme Court on 26 September 2003, the applicant challenged the appeal decision of 31 October 2002. He alleged that he had not been afforded an opportunity to be present at the appeal hearing and had not been provided with the assistance of counsel. By a decision of 25 May 2004, a Supreme Court judge rejected his request.